4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Sofia.
5.  In 1992 the applicant and three other individuals entered into a contract with a company engaged in cigarette production.
6.  On 6 July 1993 the applicant was remanded in custody. Shortly after that charges were raised against him and the other three individuals for documentary fraud and aggravated fraud committed in respect of the cigarette company as well as for making false declarations. They were accused, in particular, of organising a fictitious export of cigarettes in order to avoid paying excise tax.
7.  On 26 July 1993 the applicant was released on bail.
8.  On 5 December 1994 the prosecutor discontinued the proceedings in respect of some of the charges. On 4 April 1995 the prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant with the Plovdiv Regional Court for aggravated documentary fraud.
9.  In a judgment of 16 November 1998 the Plovdiv Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment.
10.  On an unspecified date, apparently following the applicant’s appeal, the Plovdiv Appellate Court quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case to the prosecutor for further investigation.
11. On 27 October 1999 the prosecutor filed a fresh indictment with the Plovdiv District Court for aggravated fraud. The applicant and his alleged accomplices were accused, in particular, of causing significant material damage to the company as the stipulated export of cigarettes never took place and the company had to pay the excise tax.
12.  On an unspecified date the company brought a civil claim against the applicant which was accepted by the court for examination. On 16 December 1999 and 26 January 2000 the District Court held hearings which were adjourned as the applicant failed to appear.
13. On 3 March 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody.
14. On 30 June 2000 the District Court acquitted the applicant and his alleged accomplices and dismissed the civil claim against them. The court found that there had been no casual link between the behaviour of the accused and the damage sustained by the company as in any event the latter had been bound by law to pay the excise tax.
15.  Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, on 20 February 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the judgment.
16.  Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, on 12 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the acquittal and remitted the case to the Regional Court for new examination.
17.  In a judgment of 20 May 2004 the Plovdiv Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment.
18.  Upon the applicant’s appeal, in a judgment of 4 April 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment for procedural breaches and remitted the case to the Regional Court for new examination.
19.  In a judgment of 1 March 2006 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the judgment of 30 June 2000 (see paragraph 14 above).
20.  Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, on 17 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Plovdiv Regional Court, stating, inter alia, that the lower court had failed to examine the case thoroughly, and remitted the case to the Regional Court for new examination.
21.  In a decision of 12 February 2008 the court discontinued the proceedings in its criminal part as time barred. The decision became final on an unspecified date, not later than May 2008.
22.  Following the decision of 12 February 2008, the proceedings on the merits continued only in respect of the civil claim against the applicant and his alleged accomplices.
23.  In a judgment of 17 March 2008 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the judgment of 30 June 2000 in its civil part.
24.  In a decision of 5 June 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation discontinued the examination of an appeal by the plaintiff stating that the judgment of 17 March 2008 was not subject to judicial review.